Exploring the Foundations of a Baboon Ethic and Its Implications

Eye in the Sky: Dr. Adam Cruise

Baboons, as fellow primates, bear remarkable similarities to humans—biologically, behaviorally, historically, and even culturally. These shared traits compel us to reconsider how we assess their well-being and how we relate to them ethically. To truly protect and coexist with baboons, we must develop a unique moral framework—one that goes beyond traditional anthropocentric ethics and accounts for their sentience, social lives, and shared history with humans.

Sentience as a Moral Foundation

At the core of any ethical consideration lies the concept of sentience—the capacity to feel, particularly to suffer and to experience pleasure. Sentience forms the foundation of moral value in both human and non-human animals, especially in higher-order mammals like baboons. Because humans are primates too, it is easier for us to recognise sentience in species so closely related to us. This similarity suggests that baboons deserve moral consideration comparable to humans.

Given their proven capacity to suffer, any act that causes baboons physical pain or psychological distress—whether lethal or non-lethal—raises ethical red flags. Tools commonly used to deter baboons, such as paintball markers, gel blasters, bird bangers, strobe lights, and high-pressure water units, may not kill but do cause harm. As such, they are ethically indefensible under a sentience-based framework.

Beyond Suffering: The Limits of Pain-Based Ethics

However, an ethical system based solely on the avoidance of suffering is inherently flawed. For example, it might permit the "humane" killing of an individual if done painlessly. Yet, removing a single baboon from its troop disrupts the social cohesion vital to their collective well-being. Baboons are deeply social creatures, and harm to one can reverberate through the entire group.

Other necessary interventions—such as capture, translocation, or rehabilitation—might also be deemed unethical under a strict anti-suffering model, even if they are carried out for the long-term benefit of the animal or the group.

Most critically, a sentience-only model remains human-centric. It assumes that moral value is defined by human perception of suffering, placing humanity at the top of a moral hierarchy. Even if baboons rank highly on this scale, they are still ranked below humans, and this diminishes their protection in conflict scenarios.

Cultural Bias and the Baboon's "Misbehavior"

Human moral judgment further complicates things. Baboons engage in behaviours that humans often find morally unacceptable—stealing, damaging property, and even attacking other animals or people. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, such acts might be labelled as criminal. Yet, for baboons, these behaviours are survival strategies, not ethical transgressions.

This mismatch in moral codes means that applying a human framework to baboons is not only unjust but ineffective. Baboons live in and adapt to human spaces, making conflict more likely. And in disputes, human interests—under our current ethical model—will almost always take precedence.

Toward a New Ethic: Flourishing and Coexistence

To move beyond these limitations, we must adopt the concept of intrinsic value—the idea that baboons have worth not only because they can suffer but because of who they are and how they live. This leads us to the ethical concept of flourishing, which emphasises a species’ ability to develop its natural capacities and live in a way that is meaningful to its nature.

For baboons, flourishing doesn’t necessarily mean living untouched in wild landscapes. Unlike many other wild mammals, baboons have a long history of adapting to and thriving alongside humans. This co-evolutionary relationship suggests that baboon well-being can include life within human-modified environments.

Historically, baboons and humans have lived side by side. It was only relatively recently that humans began creating exclusive spaces—farms, towns, and conservation areas—barred to other primates. Recognising this shared past urges us to develop an ethic of coexistence, not separation.

Reimagining Conservation

To truly conserve baboons, we must redefine what conservation means. Rather than prioritising human needs and only protecting baboons at a distance, we need a model rooted in peaceful, non-violent coexistence. This includes acknowledging their culture, social structures, and historical ties to human spaces.

Such a model challenges rigid divisions between the "natural" and "human" worlds. Baboons do not fit neatly into either category—they blur the lines, just as our shared history does. In recognising this, we are compelled to develop a baboon-specific ethic that incorporates their capacity for suffering, their social lives, their adaptability, and their intrinsic worth.

Conclusion

As the world becomes increasingly shaped by human hands, the survival of baboons depends on a radical shift in how we perceive and treat them. A baboon ethic must move beyond pain and punishment and toward respect, cohabitation, and mutual flourishing. Only by embracing this integrated, compassionate approach can we ensure a future where both humans and baboons thrive—together.